#28: Then you effectively reviewed the 945 board, and not the cpu. Because the 670 would only be 5.5% faster max. than the 660. Perhaps the graphs could be changed to say '670 (945)' for the new Intel combo.
20 - Posted on May 26, 2005 at 8:33 PM by flatblastard Reply
#10 "don't forget, a 200 MHz increase with AMD cpus is like a 300+ MHz increase for intel"
#13 Also consider the fact that 200 "A64 Mhz" aren't equal to 200 "P4 MHz"
I am aware of this, and I will now make you aware of the fact that I can afford to have 10 less FPS.
-------------
Ah, so in that case you CERTAINLY wouldn't buy this more expensive 670 chip that doesn't even always outperform slower Intel ones.
The 670 was the only board to use the 945 chipset and latest drivers from Intel. This could account for the odd Nero and Winzip numbers. I'm speaking more of the drivers than the hardware.
I really don't understand why so many people complain/laugh at/question CPU releases. Everyone should be happy that another CPU is out on the market. The more are out there (especially of the upper end processors), the faster the price will drop.
We'll have to wait and see if other sites get the same differences in the 6xx family before jumping to conclusions, but it sure does seem very strange....
Certain benchmarks are not 100% repeatable. WinStones, SysMark, WorldBench, etc. can all vary by a decent amount. While running multiple benches does help a bit, you can still end up with some odd results. I've seen variance of 5% on some benchmarks, for example. I don't know about the WinZip and Nero results, though - it looks like some other hardware or driver provided for a major change.
Is lower or higher 'better for the Sysmark Data Analysis scores ? The 670 got 183"". [ ]
Weird how the AMD Athlon 3400+(2.4/512/1ch) did so badly in the Specviewperf 8- Pro/Engineer Performance Engineering and SolidWorks Viewset....
I was trying to tell how well a given processor would do,so bliping on the AMD Athlon 3400+(2.4/512/1ch) I thought that would be a good processor to have,now is that a 754 platform processor/motherboard.
Couldn't find same range processor from a retailer in 939 wich would only show it in 754?
[ ]
Somebody here said 1ch/2ch is dual channel ? The benchmark setup did tell of using the 754,lest an Nvidia SLI is one of those ?
"And I suppose if AMD released a venice core clocked @ 2.6 Ghz, you all would not be calling it "just a speed bump". Rather, it would be considered a huge deal, and you all WOULD care."
2.4 --> 2.6 != 3.6 --> 3.8 (% speed increase)
Also consider the fact that 200 "A64 Mhz" aren't equal to 200 "P4 MHz"
5 - Posted on May 26, 2005 at 2:42 PM by flatblastard Reply
And I suppose if AMD released a venice core clocked @ 2.6 Ghz, you all would not be calling it "just a speed bump". Rather, it would be considered a huge deal, and you all WOULD care.
----
don't forget, a 200 MHz increase with AMD cpus is like a 300+ MHz increase for intel
#3 is right, there are some major discrepancies between the actual results and what was predicted. Take a look at the WinZip and Nero numbers; for Winzip, the 650->660->670 comes in at 430->411->349 respectively(or a difference of 29->62), and Nero shows 560->550->456(for a difference of 10->94!). Something has to have been changed her, be it a hard drive or drivers; the 670 scores do no correlate with the other 6xx scores at all.
This article would be worded totally different if the 670 performed consistently better than the 570 from benchmark to benchmark. Instead it wins some and loses some.
As #4 says, even the 3.43 gallatin EE beats the 3.73 prescott EE in a lot of the benchmarks.
Intel is unreliable when it comes to new processors until the Pentium M is revamped in the form of Yonah and of course as #6 stated Conroe (don't forget Cedar Mill).
AMD was bashed left and right when they went from Palamino to Thoroughbred A to Thoroughbred B to Barton. There were very little performance improvements between these chips and they kept getting hotter and hotter. Review sites were constantly saying that the Athlon XP had gone as far as it can go and ran out of steam around the Athlon XP 2500+.
Therefore, AMD came out with the Athlon 64 and fixed all the problems. Each release of a new chip usually has brought speed improvements and decreased power usage.
Now its Intel's turn. The Pentium 4 architecture has run out of steam. Each new processor brings nothing new to the table and in some cases hurts performance. The Pentium 4 was at the peak with the Northwood core, therefore, logically, reviews sites and comment boards are bashing Intel.
Once Intel releases the next gen processors and AMD's Athlon 64 runs out of steam, the review sites and comment boards will change directions once again as always.
Please read this article at xbitlabs for further info on the history of the Pentium 4 and why Intel is no longer going to support it soon.
The 6xx line is to the Athlon 64 as Barton was to the P4C - just a fill-in to avoid embarrassing benchmark defeats until Intel's replacement appears; Conroe.
And I suppose if AMD released a venice core clocked @ 2.6 Ghz, you all would not be calling it "just a speed bump". Rather, it would be considered a huge deal, and you all WOULD care.
It does perform well in somethings but the increased latency is bad - the last benchmark, SPECviewperf 8 - Unigraphics V17, where the 5xx series pretty much consistently beat the 6xx, that is awful when it costs so much more, if you pay more for something you'd expect it to perform better. Similar thing with the 3.4XE (Gallatin-based) and 3.73XE (Prescott-based) in the past. Like many others I'm jumping ship on Intel now unless I can easily get a hold of a Pentium M SFF with SATA support (I'd rather not get the 915 cos of PCIe and DDR2), let's face it, Pentium M is pretty much Intel's only strong performer these days...
I think it's pretty darn easy to make the case the the higher end X2s would be the better buy most of the time. Just curious if the same destraught posters bemoaning the X2s' prices recently will be in here and the forums braying about the 670's cost as well. Or does an endorsement by the Blue Man Group wash away all sins? :)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
33 Comments
Back to Article
Gatak - Saturday, May 28, 2005 - link
DRM!http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=49...
Seems as the new Intel CPUs and Chiptsets are DRM enabled in hardware now!
Icehawk - Saturday, May 28, 2005 - link
There were some odd results IMO, at least one test were the 660 was faster than the 670. Eh?Remember the good old days when a processor that cost more and was rated higher was just plain faster? :D
When is Anandtech going to update the version of ACDSee used? It is 2 versions old :(
The DvD - Saturday, May 28, 2005 - link
#28: Then you effectively reviewed the 945 board, and not the cpu. Because the 670 would only be 5.5% faster max. than the 660. Perhaps the graphs could be changed to say '670 (945)' for the new Intel combo.RockHydra11 - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
C'mon Intel. Exnay on the escotpreyacoub - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
20 - Posted on May 26, 2005 at 8:33 PM by flatblastard Reply#10 "don't forget, a 200 MHz increase with AMD cpus is like a 300+ MHz increase for intel"
#13 Also consider the fact that 200 "A64 Mhz" aren't equal to 200 "P4 MHz"
I am aware of this, and I will now make you aware of the fact that I can afford to have 10 less FPS.
-------------
Ah, so in that case you CERTAINLY wouldn't buy this more expensive 670 chip that doesn't even always outperform slower Intel ones.
DerekWilson - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
The 670 was the only board to use the 945 chipset and latest drivers from Intel. This could account for the odd Nero and Winzip numbers. I'm speaking more of the drivers than the hardware.Derek Wilson
mjz - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
#20.. I don't understand, why would you want to buy a CPU that is slower than a cheaper alternative.. That being, AMD. Faster, cheaper, why not?JarredWalton - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
23 - I'm almost positive that the 4000+ used was an older Sledgehammer core. As far as I know, no one at AnandTech has a San Diego yet.Murst - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
I really don't understand why so many people complain/laugh at/question CPU releases. Everyone should be happy that another CPU is out on the market. The more are out there (especially of the upper end processors), the faster the price will drop.We'll have to wait and see if other sites get the same differences in the 6xx family before jumping to conclusions, but it sure does seem very strange....
Zebo - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
No X2 in there?Well I guess Intel has to win a couple benchmarks..and technically the X2 processor is'nt really "out" yet.:D
But niether is 670...
bob661 - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
Since you're here Jarred. Was the tested 4000 a San Diego core? Thanks much.bob661 - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
#16There ARE San Diego core 4000's. Check here:
http://tinyurl.com/cdy8m
JarredWalton - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
Certain benchmarks are not 100% repeatable. WinStones, SysMark, WorldBench, etc. can all vary by a decent amount. While running multiple benches does help a bit, you can still end up with some odd results. I've seen variance of 5% on some benchmarks, for example. I don't know about the WinZip and Nero results, though - it looks like some other hardware or driver provided for a major change.flatblastard - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
#10 "don't forget, a 200 MHz increase with AMD cpus is like a 300+ MHz increase for intel"#13 Also consider the fact that 200 "A64 Mhz" aren't equal to 200 "P4 MHz"
I am aware of this, and I will now make you aware of the fact that I can afford to have 10 less FPS.
Tujan - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
""Or does an endorsement by the Blue Man Group wash away all sins? :) ""............Nay think its a matter of reviewers not being aware of when the next shipment of bananas is going to come in.
A load of bull can be a load of bull sometimes.
Tujan - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
Is lower or higher 'better for the Sysmark Data Analysis scores ? The 670 got 183"". [ ]Weird how the AMD Athlon 3400+(2.4/512/1ch) did so badly in the Specviewperf 8- Pro/Engineer Performance Engineering and SolidWorks Viewset....
I was trying to tell how well a given processor would do,so bliping on the AMD Athlon 3400+(2.4/512/1ch) I thought that would be a good processor to have,now is that a 754 platform processor/motherboard.
Couldn't find same range processor from a retailer in 939 wich would only show it in 754?
[ ]
Somebody here said 1ch/2ch is dual channel ? The benchmark setup did tell of using the 754,lest an Nvidia SLI is one of those ?
SLIM - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
Heres another request for some kind of explanation about the very odd scaling amongst the 6xx series chips especially in the PC Worldbench results.mjz - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
14 - the 4000 is an FX 53 without the multi.. it is not a san diego core.bob661 - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
Also, could you guys include an Autodesk Inventor or Mechanical Desktop bench?bob661 - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
Does anyone know if the 4000 used was a San Diego core? Thanks.JustAnAverageGuy - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
"And I suppose if AMD released a venice core clocked @ 2.6 Ghz, you all would not be calling it "just a speed bump". Rather, it would be considered a huge deal, and you all WOULD care."2.4 --> 2.6 != 3.6 --> 3.8 (% speed increase)
Also consider the fact that 200 "A64 Mhz" aren't equal to 200 "P4 MHz"
AkumaX - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
#11,They're trying to distinguish between S754 and S939 (single channel vs dual channel memory)
is my S754 Newcastle @ 10 x 240 = 2400mhz really that slow? :P
Admiral Ackbar - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
Sorry but I have missed something, what does the 1CH versus 2CH mean on the Athlons?mjz - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
5 - Posted on May 26, 2005 at 2:42 PM by flatblastard ReplyAnd I suppose if AMD released a venice core clocked @ 2.6 Ghz, you all would not be calling it "just a speed bump". Rather, it would be considered a huge deal, and you all WOULD care.
----
don't forget, a 200 MHz increase with AMD cpus is like a 300+ MHz increase for intel
ViRGE - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
#3 is right, there are some major discrepancies between the actual results and what was predicted. Take a look at the WinZip and Nero numbers; for Winzip, the 650->660->670 comes in at 430->411->349 respectively(or a difference of 29->62), and Nero shows 560->550->456(for a difference of 10->94!). Something has to have been changed her, be it a hard drive or drivers; the 670 scores do no correlate with the other 6xx scores at all.mlittl3 - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
#5,This article would be worded totally different if the 670 performed consistently better than the 570 from benchmark to benchmark. Instead it wins some and loses some.
As #4 says, even the 3.43 gallatin EE beats the 3.73 prescott EE in a lot of the benchmarks.
Intel is unreliable when it comes to new processors until the Pentium M is revamped in the form of Yonah and of course as #6 stated Conroe (don't forget Cedar Mill).
AMD was bashed left and right when they went from Palamino to Thoroughbred A to Thoroughbred B to Barton. There were very little performance improvements between these chips and they kept getting hotter and hotter. Review sites were constantly saying that the Athlon XP had gone as far as it can go and ran out of steam around the Athlon XP 2500+.
Therefore, AMD came out with the Athlon 64 and fixed all the problems. Each release of a new chip usually has brought speed improvements and decreased power usage.
Now its Intel's turn. The Pentium 4 architecture has run out of steam. Each new processor brings nothing new to the table and in some cases hurts performance. The Pentium 4 was at the peak with the Northwood core, therefore, logically, reviews sites and comment boards are bashing Intel.
Once Intel releases the next gen processors and AMD's Athlon 64 runs out of steam, the review sites and comment boards will change directions once again as always.
Please read this article at xbitlabs for further info on the history of the Pentium 4 and why Intel is no longer going to support it soon.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/netbu...
yacoub - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
"In order to continue getting the same performance boost form part to part"form/from
=)
BitByBit - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
The 6xx line is to the Athlon 64 as Barton was to the P4C - just a fill-in to avoid embarrassing benchmark defeats until Intel's replacement appears; Conroe.flatblastard - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
And I suppose if AMD released a venice core clocked @ 2.6 Ghz, you all would not be calling it "just a speed bump". Rather, it would be considered a huge deal, and you all WOULD care.plewis00 - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
It does perform well in somethings but the increased latency is bad - the last benchmark, SPECviewperf 8 - Unigraphics V17, where the 5xx series pretty much consistently beat the 6xx, that is awful when it costs so much more, if you pay more for something you'd expect it to perform better. Similar thing with the 3.4XE (Gallatin-based) and 3.73XE (Prescott-based) in the past. Like many others I'm jumping ship on Intel now unless I can easily get a hold of a Pentium M SFF with SATA support (I'd rather not get the 915 cos of PCIe and DDR2), let's face it, Pentium M is pretty much Intel's only strong performer these days...The DvD - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
There is something wrong with the Sysmark benches. It gains way too much compared to P4 650-> P4 660.fishbits - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
Nice performance. Horrible price.I think it's pretty darn easy to make the case the the higher end X2s would be the better buy most of the time. Just curious if the same destraught posters bemoaning the X2s' prices recently will be in here and the forums braying about the 670's cost as well. Or does an endorsement by the Blue Man Group wash away all sins? :)
MPE - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
You guys have to STOP using Premiere 6. Come on, even leechers are downloading PP 1.5 since early this year.